could not be realized in a day, even if the measures taken to promote
it were successful. So we find Trajan[1084] not only founding colonies
in Italy but forbidding colonists to be drawn from Italy for settlement
in the Provinces; a restriction said to have been[1085] disregarded by
Marcus. But one important sequel of the frontier wars of Marcus, in which
German mercenaries were employed, was the transplanting[1086] of large
numbers of German captives into Italy. Such removals had occurred before,
but seldom and on a small scale. This wholesale transplantation under
Marcus made a precedent for many similar movements later on. It may be
taken for granted that the emperor did not turn out Italians in order to
find room for the new settlers. It is also probable that these were bound
to military service. The great military colonies of later date, formed
of whole tribes or nations settled near the frontiers, certainly held
their lands on military tenure. Such was the system of frontier defence
gradually forced upon Rome through the failure of native imperial forces
sufficient for the purpose: and this failure was first conspicuous in
Italy. Among the various measures taken by emperors to interest more
persons in promoting Italian agriculture we may notice Trajan’s[1087]
ordinance, that Provincials who aspired to become Roman Senators must
shew themselves true children of Rome by investing one third of their
property in Italian land. The order seems to have been operative, but the
reduction[1088] of the fixed minimum proportion from ⅓ to ¼ by Marcus
looks as if the first rule had been found too onerous. There is no reason
to think that the state of rural Italy was materially bettered by these
well-meant efforts. And the introduction of barbarian settlers, who had
to be kept bound to the soil in order to be readily available when needed
for military service, tended to give the rustic population a more and
more stationary character. It was in fact becoming more usual to let
farms to free _coloni_; but the _coloni_, though personally free, were
losing freedom of movement.
NOTE ON EMIGRATION FROM ITALY.
In the _Journal of Roman Studies_ (vol VIII) I have discussed
the question whether the emigration from Italy to the Provinces
was to a serious extent agricultural in character, and in
particular whether we can believe it to have carried abroad
real working rustics in large numbers. Are we to see in it
an important effective cause of the falling-off of the free
rustic population of Italy? That the volume of emigration
was large may be freely granted; also that settlements of
discharged soldiers took place from time to time. Nor does it
seem doubtful that many of the emigrants became possessors
of farm-lands[1089] in the Provinces. But that such persons
were working rustics, depending on their own labour, is by
no means clear. And, if they were not, the fact of their
holding land abroad does not bear directly on the decay of
the working farmer class in Italy. That commerce and finance
and exploitation in general were the main occupations of
Italian[1090] emigrants, I do not think can be seriously
doubted. And that many of them combined landholding with their
other enterprises is probable enough.
Professor Reid kindly reminds me that soldiers from Italy,
whose term of service expired while they were still in a
Province, were apt to settle down there in considerable
numbers. The case of Carteia in Spain is well known, and that
of Avido, also in Spain, was probably of the same nature. These
were not regular Colonies. So too in Africa Marius seems to
have left behind him communities of soldiers not regularly
organized[1091] as _coloniae_. When the town of Uchi Maius
received the title of _colonia_ from the emperor Severus, it
called itself[1092] _colonia Mariana_, like the one founded by
Marius in Corsica. And the same title appears in the case[1093]
of Thibari. With these African settlements we may connect the
law carried by Saturninus in 100 BC to provide the veterans
of Marius with allotments of land in Africa, on the scale
of 100 _iugera_ for each man. If this record[1094] is to be
trusted (and the doubtful points cannot be discussed here), the
natural inference is that farms of considerable size are meant,
for the working of which no small amount of labour would be
required. Nor is this surprising, for the soldiers of Marius
were at the time masters of the situation, and not likely to
be content with small grants. Whether the allotments proposed
were in Africa or in Cisalpine Gaul[1095] is not quite certain.
Marius seems to have left Africa in the winter of 105-4 BC.
Since then he had been engaged in the war with the northern
barbarians, and the lands recovered from the invaders were in
question. Still, the proposal may have referred to Africa, for
it is certain that the connexion of Marius with that Province
was remembered[1096] long after. The important point is that
the persons to be gratified were not civilian peasants but
discharged veterans of the New Model army, professionalized by
Marius himself. Neither the retired professional mercenaries of
Greco-Macedonian armies, nor the military colonists of Sulla,
give us reason to believe that such men would regard hard and
monotonous labour with their own hands as a suitable reward
for the toils and perils of their years of military service.
Surely they looked forward to a life of comparative ease, with
slaves to labour under their orders. If they kept their hold on
their farms, they would become persons of some importance in
their own provincial neighbourhood. Such were the _milites_ or
_veterani_ whom we find often mentioned under the later Empire:
and these too were evidently not labourers but landlords and
directors.
Therefore I hold that the class of men, many of them Italians
by descent, whom we find holding land in various Provinces
and living on the profits of the same, were mostly if not all
either soldier-settlers or persons to whom landholding was one
of several enterprises of exploitation. That the mere Italian
peasant emigrated in such numbers as seriously to promote the
falling-off of the free rustic population of Italy, is a thesis
that I cannot consider as proved or probable.
XXXV. MUSONIUS.
In earlier chapters I have found it necessary to examine the views of
philosophers on the subject of agriculture and agricultural labour,
holding it important to note the attitude of great thinkers towards
these matters. And indeed a good deal is to be gleaned from Plato and
Aristotle. Free speculations on the nature of the State included not
only strictly political inquiries, but social and economic also. But in
the Macedonian period, when Greek states no longer enjoyed unrestricted
freedom of movement and policy, a change came over philosophy. The
tendency of the schools that now shewed most vital energy, such as the
Epicurean and Stoic, was to concern themselves with the Individual
rather than the State. The nature of Man, and his possibilities of
happiness, became more and more engrossing topics. As the political
conditions under which men had to live were now manifestly imposed
by circumstances over which the ordinary citizen had no control, the
happiness of the Individual could no longer be dependent on success in
political ambitions and the free play of civic life. It had to be sought
in himself, independent of circumstances. The result was that bold
questioning and the search for truth ceased to be the prime function
of philosophic schools, and the formation of character took the first
place. Hence the elaboration of systems meant to regulate a man’s life
by implanting in him a fixed conception of the world in which he had
to live, and his relation to the great universe of which he and his
immediate surroundings formed a part. And this implied a movement which
may be roughly described as from questioning to dogma. The teacher became
more of a preacher, his disciples more of a congregation of the faithful;
and more and more the efficiency of his ministrations came to depend on
his own personal influence, which we often call magnetism.
When Greek literature and thought became firmly established in Rome
during the second century BC, it was just this dogmatic treatment
of moral questions that gave philosophy a hold on a people far more
interested in conduct than in speculation. The Roman attempts, often
clumsy enough, to translate principle into practice were, and continued
to be, various in spirit and success. Stoicism in particular blended
most readily with the harder and more virile types of Roman character,
and found a peculiarly sympathetic reception among eminent lawyers. The
reigns of the first emperors were not favourable to moral philosophy;
but the accession of Nero set literature, and with it moralizing, in
motion once more. A kind of eclectic Stoicism came into fashion, a
Roman product, of which Seneca was the chief representative. A touch
of timeserving was needed to adapt Greek theories for practical use in
the world of imperial Rome. Seneca was both a courtier and a wealthy
landowner, and was one of the victims of Nero’s tyranny. We have seen
that while preaching Stoic doctrine, for instance on the relations of
master and slave, he shews little interest in agriculture for its own
sake or in the conditions of agricultural labour. It is interesting
to contrast with his attitude that of another Stoic, a man of more
uncompromising and consistent type, whose life was partly contemporaneous
with that of Seneca, and who wrote only a few years later under the
Flavian emperors.
=Musonius[1097] Rufus=, already a teacher of repute in Nero’s time,
seems to have kept himself clear of conspiracies and intrigues,
recognizing the necessity of the monarchy and devoting himself to his
profession of moral guide to young men. But any great reputation was
dangerous in Nero’s later years, and a pretext was found for banishing
the philosopher in 65. Under Galba he returned to Rome, still convinced
of the efficacy of moral suasion, witnessed the bloody successions of
emperors in 69, and risked his life in an ill-timed effort to stay the
advance of Vespasian’s soldiery by discoursing on the blessings of peace.
Vespasian seems to have allowed him to remain in Rome, and he is said to
have been tutor to Titus. Yet he had not shrunk from bringing to justice
an informer guilty of the judicial murder of a brother Stoic, and he was
generally regarded as the noblest of Roman teachers, both in principles
and in practice. He has been spoken of as a forerunner of Epictetus and
Marcus Aurelius. Evidently no timeserver, he seems to have made allowance
for human needs and human weakness in the application of strict moral
rules. It is a great pity that we have no complete authentic works of
his surviving: but some of the reports by a pupil or pupils have come
down to us. One of these extracts[1098] is so complete in itself, and so
striking in its view of agriculture and agricultural labour, that I have
translated it here. We are to bear in mind that the opinions expressed
in it belong to a time when a small number of great landlords owned a
large part (and that the most attractive) of Italy, and vast estates
in the provinces as well. It is the luxurious and slave-ridden world
of Petronius and Seneca that we must keep before us in considering the
advice of Musonius; advice which we cannot simply ignore, however much we
may see in this good man a voice crying in the wilderness.
‘There is also another resource[1099], nowise inferior to the above, one
that might reasonably be deemed superior to it, at least for a man of
strong body: I mean that derived from the land, whether the farmer owns
it or not. For we see that there are many who, though cultivating land
owned by the state[1100] or by other persons, are yet able to support
not only themselves but wives and children; while there are some who by
the devoted industry of their own hands[1101] attain to great abundance
in this way of life. For the earth responds most fairly and justly to
the care bestowed upon her, returning manifold what she receives and
providing a plenty of all things necessary to life for him that will
labour; and she does it consistently with a man’s self-respect and
dignity. For nobody, other than an effeminate weakling, would describe
any of the operations of husbandry as disgraceful or incompatible with
manly excellence. Are not planting ploughing vine-dressing honourable
works? And sowing reaping threshing, are not these all liberal pursuits,
suited to good men? Nay, the shepherd’s life, if it did not degrade
Hesiod or hinder him from winning divine favour and poetic renown,
neither will it hinder others. For my part, I hold this to be the best
of all the tasks comprised in husbandry, inasmuch as it affords the
soul more leisure for pondering and investigating what concerns mental
culture. For all tasks that bend the body and keep it fully on the strain
do at the same time force the soul to give them its whole attention, or
nearly so, sharing as it does the strain of the body: but all those that
permit the body to escape excessive strain do not prevent the soul from
reasoning out important questions and from improving its own wisdom by
such reasonings, a result which is the special aim of every philosopher.
This is why I set such special value on the art of shepherds. If however
a man does[1102] combine tillage with philosophy, I hold no other life
comparable with this, and no other means of livelihood preferable to
it. Surely it is more according to nature to get your sustenance from
Earth, our nurse and mother, than from some other source. Surely it
is more manly[1103] to live on a farm than to sit idle in a city.
Surely out-of-door pursuits are healthier than sheltered retirement.
Which, pray, is the freeman’s choice, to meet his needs by receiving
from others, or by contrivance of his own? Why, it is thought far more
dignified to be able to satisfy your own requirements unaided than with
aid of others. So true is it that to live by husbandry, of course with
due respect[1104] to what is good and honourable, is beautiful and
conducive to happiness and divine favour. Hence it was that the god
(Delphic Apollo) proclaimed[1105] that Myson of Chenae was a wise man
and greeted Aglaus of Psophis as a happy one; for these both led rustic
lives, working with their own hands and not spending their time in
cities. Surely then it is a worthy ambition to follow these men’s example
and devote ourselves to husbandry in earnest.
‘Some may think it a monstrous notion that a man of educative power,
qualified to lead youths on to philosophy, should till the soil and do
bodily labour like a rustic. And, if it had been the fact that tilling
the soil hinders the pursuit of philosophy or the lending help to others
in that pursuit, the notion would have been monstrous indeed. But, as
things are, if young men could see their teacher at work in the country,
demonstrating in practice the principle to which reason guides us, namely
that bodily toil and suffering are preferable to dependence on others
for our food, I think it would be more helpful to them than attendance
at his lectures in town. What is to hinder the pupil, while he works
at his teacher’s side, from catching his utterances on self-control or
justice or fortitude? For the right pursuit of philosophy is not promoted
by much talking, and young men are under no necessity to learn off the
mass of speculation on these topics, an accomplishment of which the
Professors[1106] are so vain. For such discourses are indeed sufficient
to use up a man’s lifetime: but it is possible to pick up the most
indispensable and useful points even when one is engaged in the work
of husbandry, especially as the work will not be unceasing but admits
periods of rest. Now I am well aware that few will be willing to receive
instruction by this method: but it is better that the majority of youths
who profess the pursuit of philosophy should never attend a philosopher
at all, I mean those unsound effeminate creatures whose presence at
the classes is a stain upon the name of philosophy. For of those that
have a genuine love of philosophy not one would be unwilling to spend
his time with a good man on a farm, aye though that farm were one most
difficult[1107] to work; seeing that he would reap great advantages
from this employment. He would have the company of his teacher night
and day; he would be removed from the evils of city life, which are a
stumbling-block to the pursuit of philosophy; his conduct, good or bad,
could not escape notice (and nothing benefits a pupil more than this);
moreover, to be under the eye of a good man when eating and drinking and
sleeping is a great benefit.’
At this point the writer digresses for a moment to quote some lines of
Theognis and to interpret them in a sense favourable to his own views.
He then continues ‘And let no one say that husbandry is a hindrance to
learning or teaching. Surely it is not so, if we reflect that under these
conditions the pupil enjoys most fully the company of his teacher while
the teacher has the fullest control of his pupil. Such then being the
state of the case, it is clear that of the philosopher’s resources none
is more useful or more becoming than that drawn from husbandry.’
In this extract three points simply stand for principles dear to all
sincere Stoics; (1) the duty and benefit of living ‘according to
Nature,’ (2) the duty and benefit of self-sufficiency and not depending
on the support of others, (3) the duty and satisfaction of continued
self-improvement. Consistent practice on these lines would go far to
produce the Stoic ideal, the Wise Man, happy and perfect in his assurance
and dignity. But the attempt to combine all these in a ‘back to the land’
scheme of moral betterment has surely in it a marked personal note. It is
the dream of a singular man in the surroundings of a rotten civilization;
a civilization more rotten, and a dream more utopian, than the dreamer
could possibly know. Aspirations towards a healthy outdoor life had been
felt by many before Musonius. Admiration of rustic pursuits was no new
thing, but it was generally freedom from worries, with the occasional
diversions of the chase, that were attractive to the town-bred man.
Ploughing and digging, and the responsible charge of flocks and herds,
had long been almost entirely left to slaves, and Musonius is driven to
confess that few youths of the class from which he drew pupils would
be willing to undertake such occupations. It was useless to urge that
bodily labour is not degrading: that it is exhausting, and engrosses the
whole attention, he could not deny. He falls back on pastoral duties as
light and allowing leisure for serious discourse. The suggestion seems
unreal, though sincere, when we remember that Italian shepherds had to
fight wolves and brigands. Moreover, the preference of grazing to tillage
was in no small degree due to the fewer persons employed in it, and the
stockmen were a notoriously rough class. Even the idealized shepherds
of the bucolic poets exhibit a coarseness not congenial to conversation
savouring of virtue. But to a Stoic preacher who could try to pacify a
licentious soldiery the notion of using pastoral pursuits as a means to
moral excellence may well have seemed a reasonable proposal.
It is at least clear that the futility of philosophy as administered
by lecturers in Rome had made a strong impression on Musonius. The
fashionable company to whom the discourses were addressed, whether they
for the moment shed some of their self-satisfaction or not, were seldom
or never induced to remodel their worthless lives. So Musonius urges them
to break away from solemn trifling and take to rustic labour. He probably
chose this remedy as one specially Roman, following the tradition of
the heroes of ancient Rome. But no artificial revival of this kind was
possible, whatever his generous optimism might say. His contemporary the
elder Pliny, who was content to glorify the vanished past and deplore
the present, had a truer appreciation of the facts. Farm-work as a
means of bringing personal influence to bear, treating body and mind
together, a sort of ‘Wisdom while you dig,’ was in such a society a
merely fantastic proposal. The importance of farming and food-production
was a commonplace, but the vocation of Musonius was moralizing and
character-production. There is no reason to think that he had any
practical knowledge of agriculture. His austere life proves nothing of
the kind. The only remark that shews acquaintance with conditions of
landholding is his reference to the farmers who make a living on hired
land. And this is in too general terms to have any historical value.
XXXVI. PLINY THE ELDER.
Among the writers of this period who refer to agricultural matters the
most important is the =elder Pliny=, who contrived in a life of public
service[1108] in various departments to amass a prodigious quantity of
miscellaneous learning and to write many erudite works. His _naturalis
historia_, an extraordinary compilation of encyclopaedic scope, contains
numerous references to agriculture, particularly in the eighteenth book.
He collected and repeated the gleanings from his omnivorous reading,
and the result is more remarkable for variety and bulk than for choice
and digestion. As a recorder he is helpful, preserving as he does a
vast number of details, some not otherwise preserved, others of use in
checking or supplementing other versions. Far removed as the book is
from being a smooth and readable literary work, the moralizing rhetoric
of the age shews its influence not only in the constant effort to wring
a lesson of some kind out of the topic of the moment, but in the longer
sermonizing passages that lead up to some subject on which the writer
feels deeply. One of these[1109] occurs in introducing agriculture,
and in pursuing the subject he loses no opportunity of contrasting a
degenerate present with a better past. We need not take his lamentations
at their full face-value, but that they were in the main justified is
not open to doubt. It has been so often necessary to cite him in earlier
chapters, that we shall not have to dwell upon him at great length here.
The functions of compiler and antiquarian are apt to coincide very
closely, and it is in his picture of the earlier conditions of Roman
and Italian farming that Pliny’s evidence is most interesting. The
old traditions[1110] of the simple and manly yeomen, each tilling his
own little plot of ground, content with his seven _iugera_ of land or
even with two in the earliest times, Cincinnatus and the rest of the
farmer-heroes, to whom their native soil, proud of her noble sons,
responded[1111] with a bounteous fertility that she denies to the
heartless labour of slave-gangs on modern _latifundia_,—these are the
topics on which he enlarges with a rhetorical or even poetic warmth.
The ruin of Italy, nay of Provinces too, through the land-grabbing and
formation of vast estates, is denounced[1112] in a classic passage. He
sees no end to the process. Six landlords held between them half the
Province of Africa in the time of Nero. Wanting money, the emperor put
them to death for the sake of their property. He does not add, but
doubtless reflected, that such measures only added to the resources
controlled by a tyrant ruler, not a desirable object. We may add further
that such iniquities inevitably disposed virtuous emperors to leave the
land-monopolizers a free hand, perhaps unwillingly; but these gentry
were not breaking the law by buying land, and an emperor conscious
of the burden of administration, and desiring to carry on his work
undisturbed by internal disloyalty, had strong reasons for not provoking
wealthy capitalists. To conciliate them, and if possible to engage their
cooperation in schemes designed for the public good according to the
ideas of the time, was to proceed on the line of least resistance.